THE High Court in Bulawayo has struck a cattle ownership dispute off the roll after finding that the certificate of urgency filed by the applicant’s legal practitioner was defective and failed to meet the required legal standard.
In a ruling delivered by Bulawayo High Court judge Justice Ngoni Nduna, the court dismissed an urgent application brought by Petrus Louw Erasmus against Louis Petrus van der Merwe and several other respondents over cattle allegedly held in the custody of the first respondent.
The matter also cited Masvingo Bull Breeders (Pvt) Limited, Threeways (Pvt) Limited, the Minister of Agriculture, Mechanisation and Water Resources, the ZRP Commissioner-General and the Deputy Sheriff of Masvingo as respondents.
The applicant claims ownership of a certain number of cattle.
According to the judgment, the dispute arose from a failed partnership between Erasmus and Van Der Merwe involving cattle ownership and control.
The court noted that the parties had previously appeared before the courts on several occasions due to the deterioration of their relationship.
The respondents challenged the validity of the certificate of urgency attached to the application, arguing that it merely reproduced portions of the applicant’s founding affidavit word-for-word and, therefore, did not demonstrate independent legal consideration by the practitioner who issued it.
Justice Nduna agreed with the respondents, ruling that a certificate of urgency should reflect the independent assessment and judgment of the legal practitioner and not simply duplicate the litigant’s submissions.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
“It is improper for it to consist merely of extracts copied and pasted from the applicant’s main papers,” he ruled.
“The legal practitioner issuing the certificate of urgency must have read and understood the matter and appreciated the basis upon which it should be accorded priority and heard ahead of others.”
The court relied on previous authorities including General Transport & Engineering (Pvt) Ltd v Zimbank Corp and East Rock Trading 7 (Pty) Ltd v Eagle Valley Granite, which emphasise that urgent applications must clearly demonstrate why substantial relief cannot be obtained through ordinary court processes.
Justice Nduna held that once the defective certificate of urgency was struck off the record, the application could no longer stand as an urgent matter.
“In the absence of such a certificate, the matter cannot be entertained as an urgent application,” the judge said.
The court consequently struck the matter off the urgent roll with costs on the ordinary scale, declining the respondents’ request for punitive costs.
The ruling reinforces the Judiciary’s insistence on strict compliance with procedural requirements in urgent applications and underscores the responsibility placed on legal practitioners to independently assess and certify urgency.
